November 12, 2008

Why Do Americans Hate Congress?

Numerous polls have demonstrated that the American people have nothing but disdain for the U.S. Congress. A page on PollingReport.com lists numerous polls over the past year in which Congress has failed to approach even a 20% approval rating.
These ratings are well below the approval ratings achieved by President Bush.

A search of the web does not turn up any systematic analysis of why Congress is so unpopular. Some Democratic websites claim that the Democratic Congress was unpopular because it had not achieved what it was elected for -- withdrawal from Iraq. Others claim on popularity is due to failure to pass other legislation that particular groups may want. These results-oriented explanations failed to answer the important structural question -- why is Congress such a failure. I will attempt to provide such an analysis.

The conduct of hearings is abominable

Congressional behavior in hearings is embarrassing. They can't just start a hearing by asking questions. Every congressman has to make an opening speech. If they have five minutes to question a witness and get responses, they spend four minutes asking a question, and cut off answers so they can make additional speeches. It is obvious that these congressmen are not interested in hearing answers or learning about potential solutions to issues. Rather, they are making political statements designed to enhance their chances for reelection or to placate some interest group. Representative Henry Waxman is one of the most egregious in this respect. He has no interest in the hearing subject other than to make his own political points, or to embarrass witnesses.

Another problem is that so many of them come across as absolute dummies. Their questions are written for them by staff; sometimes they don't understand their own question; and more often, they don't understand the answers. Most of them can't ask follow-up questions. They are either not smart enough to understand the answer and how it relates to the issue before the hearing, or they don't care about the answer -- all they wanted to do was ask the question (as written for them) so they can get on television.

Back when I was dealing with congressional aviation committees, there were only two congressmen -- Newt Gingrich and Elliott Levitas of Georgia -- who actually understood answers and asked follow-up questions. (Gingrich, of course, stayed in politics; Levitas is a lawyer in a large Atlanta law firm.) The rest demonstrated ignorance beyond belief. Senator Ted Kennedy was a prime example of this group. He would read out a question written by his staff, receive a devastating answer, and just move onto the next written question because he didn't have the wits to follow-up the answer with a relevant question.

They can't do basic stuff

Congress can't do simple things like pass appropriation bills on time. In 2008, only one out of 12 major appropriation bills was completed before the beginning of the 2009 fiscal year. This deprives government agencies of the ability to plan future activities on any reasonable basis in deprives the American people of programs that may be useful. The failure to approve nominees for government positions or judicial office is another example of Congress’s inability to act. Undoubtedly, this process will be speeded up now that there will be a Democratic President and Democratic Congress, but the failure of Congress for many years to confirm nominees has been one of the factors in bringing it into disrepute.

They can't reach clear decisions on public issues.

The way much legislation is accomplished is appalling. Some congressman has a bad idea -- one that would not be adopted by a majority of the Congress. Therefore, the proposal cannot be allowed to come up for an up or down vote. Rather, it is held until some other bill that is far more essential is before the Congress, and it is then horse traded into the legislation. The congressman or a congressional group offers to support the legislation, provided their favorite proposal is incorporated in the bill. As a result, proposals that should never see the light of day become law. The public reacts with revulsion to this process.

They subvert the appropriations process through earmarks.

A good definition of earmarks is found on the OMB website, which states "Earmarks are funds provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents the merit-based or competitive allocation process, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to properly manage funds.”

This process is inherently corrupting. While a few earmarks may be based upon valid local needs, the vast majority are for projects that the local community won't support from tax money, and will build only if it receives federal largess. For example, in 2007, Senator Barack Obama submitted 112 earmarks totaling $330 million, including $1 million for his wife's hospital. Recognizing the embarrassment is caused, Obama submitted no earmark requests in 2008. Other congressmen, such as Randy Cunningham of California, have gone to jail for accepting payments and favors for inserting earmarks into legislation.

This process became a major issue in the presidential campaign after publicity about the "bridge to nowhere" and other extravagant and unnecessary earmark proposals. It is highly doubtful, however, the Congress will reform the earmark process. Individual members seem to believe that bringing home earmarks is essential to the reelection. It is doubtful that any change will be accomplished until voters throw out major abusers of the earmark process.

Lobbyists and fund raising have compromised congressional independence

While there is some truth to the claim that lobbyists achieve undue influence because of their ability to raise money, I think this is not one of the major reasons why the public has such disdain for Congress. The media loves to focus on this issue because there are often salacious details, but it is only one of many reasons for Congress's disrepute.

Blogging to be Resumed

I stopped blogging in June because everything I read said that you had to be intensely interested in your subject matter to be a successful blogger. I found that I just wasn't interested in current regulatory matters, such as rulemakings. However, with a new administration, I think there will be a lot more to write about. Moreover, I will broaden the scope of the blog a bit to discuss politics more generally. For example the first blog of the new regime will discuss why Americans hate Congress.